Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Skobud Date: Dec 15, 2012 8:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Framer's intent

I have a question for you Mando - I was in the Marines and I obviously believe in the responsible use of weapons. Now, to frame my question:

If, say, 1 in 100000 or even 1 in a million cannot be trusted with a handgun or an AR, why is this not a legitimite reason for control of these two types of guns?

I am not talking about long guns. Hunters, keep them and hunt with them. Handguns and AR's - What prectical reason is there to keep them legal?

I absolutely understand this is a constitutional issue however, do you actually believe the framer's could possibly realize the type of issues we face in the 21st century?? The technology and types of weapons that we use today? People needed weapons in the 18th century to stay alive and hunt and protect themselves becasue laws were not at the point where people were truly protected. No phones, 911, cops and whatever.

Again, I was in and I have used and owned weapons. I dont now, but I also do not automatically vilify people who do. I just question the framer's intent when people run and hide under the guise of the 2nd amendment. We have a trained all volunteer military to protect us now. Not a "well regulated" militia. I guess my question is how is the 2nd amendment still valid in today's society? What do you think it will take for this country to realistically address Framer's intent?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Deadhead225 Date: Dec 15, 2012 9:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Framer's intent

The Framers knew that in the course of human events it may be necessary to do things other than just simply bear arms. They were giving the populace the power over tyranny, which was fresh in their minds. They did not approve of or trust strong centralized government. Maybe that had something to do with their desire to keep citizens armed. They were far more concerned with individual liberty than the authority of the State, which they abhorred.

Given this, the argument could easily be made that they would want the people to be able to match the ability of government to oppress them. Nowhere does evidence exist that the Founding Fathers desired government to trump the people's power over their own destiny, life, liberty or their pursuit of happiness. Now, what do you think they would say if they set foot in our Nation's capitol today?

While it is true that they could not foresee the technology of today, they were far more keenly aware of the behavior patterns of men throughout history through and intense study of the same as well as having a deep understanding of philosophy. It all comes down to a matter of degree of the same fundamental issues of human thought and behavior which they were intimately familiar with. If you ever go to the homes of Madison, Monroe, Jefferson and the like, take a look at their libraries and the tomes they studied. If the leaders of today had 1/10th the knowledge of history and human behavior, we'd be a lot better off.

Also, I have a degree in US history from Washington & Lee University - average class size of about 12 and a 5 point scale, so I am not just talking out my ass.

This post was modified by Deadhead225 on 2012-12-15 17:12:33

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 15, 2012 8:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Framer's intent

Sko -

Great questions and first off, sincere thanks for your service.

I would counter that 99,999 out of 100,000 or 999,999 out of a million is reason enough to not establish draconian controls on responsible owners. I'd put more effort into determining who the 1 is.

The sticky part for me is establishing what reasonable gun control means. On one end you have those who say that the 2nd is their concealed carry permit. On the other, no privately owned guns or in perfectly idyllic world, zero guns.

Reality falls in between but is closer to the first IMO.

I am in full support of reasonable gun control - background check, waiting period, automatic disqualification from ownership due to felony conviction or clinically diagnosed mental health issues. I would shut down gun sales at shows.

But none of the above have any impact on those who seek to obtain a weapon illegally. I saw one site that said there were 200 million legally owned firearms in this country. I'm sure it was a mix of shotgun, classic "hunting" rifle, AR, AK and hand guns. Unless you completely eliminate them, there will always be an element in society that will seek them out and use them to commit horrific crimes.

In that light I think the Framer's intent was to provide for people to protect themselves from whatever danger was out there. Clearly back in the 18th century the threat was more likely to be a bear than some coked up shitstain or someone who was bipolar or manic-depressive, but I think Framer's intent was to afford a means of protection. In that regard, I am unwilling to yield my right to a level playing field and the ability to protect my family.

I think evolution of the firearm has little to do with it, largely in part because the potential threat has also evolved. An extreme example, but I don't want a sword if someone else has the new Sig P224. Again, I think the Framers probably had some degree of foresight and figured things could/would change so it (the 2nd) was deliberately broad and non-specific.

I don't think we will ever be able to realistically address Framer's intent because there are too many unrealistic agendas floating around.

Case in point. That idiot fuck Bloomberg wants to ban ALL gun ownership within New York City - except the police. NYC will end up like DC. There will be three types - police, bad guys and gunshot victims. Shit, I won't even have a 32 ounce soda to throw at the bad guy with a gun. But a 14 year old girl can go get abortion counseling or day after pills at a PS??? Bloomberg is a fucking moron who, like the typical, agenda driven politician, is going to paste his face all over the tube and exploit someone else's pain to forward his agenda. (I'm done with ANY further discussion of abortion, so any of you guys reading this whose spleens are spinning up, please don't bother)

I also think you haven't considered that the 2nd was also included to afford the citizenry to protect themselves against an oppressive government. In that light the Constitution stands separate from the Government - and I am acutely aware that my Commissioning Oath was to support and defend the Constitution and the country whos course it directs. I don't think I have to elaborate further there.

I don't know....it's a tough, tough problem. I'm sitting here able to construct what I hope are reasonable responses with Mrs. Mando across from me enjoying a fire in the fireplace.

I simply cannot put myself in the place of the parents and family members in Sandy Hook who 36 hours ago were planning Christmas and Hannukah and holiday celebrations but are now planning funerals.

For children.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Skobud Date: Dec 15, 2012 10:32am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: It's Not for Me to Understand

I hear you. This debate is going to be so political and convoluted...There is no easy answer.

It's just the unthinkable seems to becoming the norm lately man.....I mean, the psychology of this fuckhead not only commiting matricide but then killing what she cared about most, her students. An extension of his hatred for his mother.

I just, I cannot fucking handle it. I cried last night when my 3 year old came home from daycare. I make jokes all the time about losing my faith in humaity, but this - fuck me.

I do feel somewhat hypocritical as I owned an SKS and a .357 snub Smitty. I just think that now that I have a child, this is a liberty I would give up if it in some way helped make him safer.

I have never in my life had an event affect me so deeply. Perhaps 9/11, however, I felt disconnected in some ways to that event because I knew no one involved or affected. That doesnt lessen the tragedy of that event, it just feels different to me.

Today I feel totally connected to the events of yesterday, because my son is going to turn 4 in a month and Mrs. Sko is an elementary school teacher. I guess I'm just commmenting brother, nothing more.

I am not a religous guy by any means. When I came home last night after hearing about this and prior to my son getting home, I poured a Bourbon and put on Willie's album Yesterdays Wine, which is a gospel album of sorts. The third or fourth song is called "It's Not for Me to Understand". It goes like this:

I passed a home the other day
The yard was filled with kids at play

And on the sidewalk of this home
A little boy stood all alone

His smiling face, was sweet and kind
But I could see the boy was blind
He listened to the children play

I bowed my head and there I prayed
Dear Lord above, why must this be?
And then these words, came down to me

After all, you're just a man
And it's not for you to understand

It's not for you to reason why
You too are blind, without my eyes

So question not, what I command
Cause it's not for you to understand

Now when I pray, my prayer is one
I pray his will, not mine, be done

After all I'm just a man
And it's not for me to understand






Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 15, 2012 11:20am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's Not for Me to Understand

Sko -

That was a wonderful post. I'll be at Mass this evening, playing guitar as usual, looking for answers. This has helped me start healing my heart.

Merry Christmas my friend - I hope you have a fantastic holiday with your family.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Dec 15, 2012 1:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's Not for Me to Understand

Thanks for that - I felt kind of numb and removed, since this seems to happen a lot, until we were watching Obama speak and love, hate, whatever the man, when he started to tear up my wife started crying and my tears started up as well.
Beyond my limited comprehension.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Skobud Date: Dec 15, 2012 11:43am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's Not for Me to Understand

Thanks Mando. I appreciate the kind words. Merry Christmas to you and yours.